This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/07/2019 at 00:56:55 (UTC).

BRIANNA EUBANKS ET AL VS MARTHA PATRICIA TEJEDA

Case Summary

On 06/11/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by BRIANNA EUBANKS against MARTHA PATRICIA TEJEDA in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9761

  • Filing Date:

    06/11/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

EUBANKS BRIANNA

Respondents and Defendants

TEJEDA MARTHA PATRICIA

DOES 1 TO 10

Minor

CROCKETT MICHAELANGELO

 

Court Documents

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

6/12/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

6/12/2018: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

6/29/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

Proof of Personal Service

10/16/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Demand for Jury Trial

12/10/2018: Demand for Jury Trial

Answer

12/10/2018: Answer

Notice

6/17/2019: Notice

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

6/11/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

6/11/2018: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/17/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY WITHIN FIRM); Filed by Martha Patricia Tejeda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Donald Blake Serafano (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Martha Patricia Tejeda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Martha Patricia Tejeda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Brianna Eubanks (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2018
  • Application ; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • Request-Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Brianna Eubanks (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC709761    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: 2

Eubanks, et al. v. Tejeda

Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the Trial of the Issues in This Case filed on 10/30/19, is DENIED without prejudice to Defendant raising this issue for the trial court to consider, on its own motion, at the time that the trial court rules on motions in limine. The court orders that the bifurcation briefing be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed in the case.

The court recognizes that Cal Rules of Court Rule 3.57(c) states, “A motion in limine may not be used for the purpose of seeking an order to try an issue before the trial of another issue or issues,” and thus this order should not be construed in a way that contradicts this rule. Defendant may direct the trial court to this order, which should not be construed in any way to bind the trial court in making a bifurcation decision on its own motion.

Defendant properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date. See Cal Code Civil Procedure §598 (court to issue order bifurcating case on noticed motion by the pretrial conference or, absent a pretrial conference, no later than 30 days in advance of trial). However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” Id.

On the facts of this case and given that in the Personal Injury Court system this case will be tried by a different court than the court ruling on this motion, the court finds it appropriate for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted. In the PI Court system, the trial court rules on motions in limine, even those that significantly affect trial preparation. While this bifurcation request is not a motion in limine, the logic of having the trial judge determine it here is similar. The request for bifurcation here appears to be one for which the trial judge should make a discretionary determination based on its experience.

Accordingly, the court denies this motion without prejudice. Defendant is ordered to give notice.